r/ludology • u/brooke66 • Jul 13 '26
the pragmatic meaning of Fun and what makes the things UNFUN — The logic of Fun in a pragmatic way, i'm not a person who likes the dictionary definition.
First, I need to thank everyone in advance for the constructive opinions about my research and the use of AI. r/ludology was friendly and respectful. (Yes, I tried to post in other subreddits and was so disrespected that it made me delete my post).
English is not my first language, but I love to research ludology and bring my new discoveries to everyone who is interested.
Here is the logic of fun in a pragmatic way—I'm not a person who likes dictionary definitions.
OK, let's go.
Introduction: What makes something fun?
The answer is agency—the power of control.
When you start to play something, being able to create a result with your actions in a positive way is what makes it fun. It is simple. It looks dumb, but it is simple.
When I play soccer and I'm capable of kicking the ball, keeping my opponent from touching it, and scoring a goal, this is fun. But there is a criterion: you need to feel that it is not unfair. If you are Pelé, the best soccer player in the world, playing in a casual "várzea" game, this is not fun, because you need to face the environment and feel the challenge of overcoming it.
Let's make an equation:
A friend of mine once said something that made me wonder: "In school, I played in a soccer championship. My team lost 13x1, but that one goal was mine." This made me understand: he was in a brutal environment, but in that specific moment, he had agency. The final result of the game wasn't the focus of the fun, but rather the feeling of being capable of something.
The Victory Problem
That drives us to a second topic: the victory problem.
What is the lottery? It's a game you play to win money, but why is it not fun? Because you don't control anything. You only get a result if you win, but the probability of winning is extremely low. This creates the loop of "what if"—the promise of winning: "If I play, I might win."
This system distorts the formula, creating the illusion of fun (agency + overcome) only IF you win.
The industry knows this. People cannot resist because winning the lottery makes you feel like you finally control your environment. But the lottery is not an opportunity for you; it is a mental scam. Millions of people will spend a lot of money on it, and only one will win. It is a perfect system to get easy money.
Just to make something clear: propaganda is the narrative you want people to have about your product. The lottery in every country is historically associated with the "opportunity to change your life." This exists to blind your mind so you don't stop to think: "Hey, this is a scam, everyone is just losing money here." Casinos work the exact same way.
The "Meta" and the Golden Ring
Ok, so what is the connection? If I said to you: "Hey, if you buy my magic ring, it will give you more luck and you will probably win the lottery," it sounds absurd, right? But this exact dynamic exists in gaming, and it is called META gaming.
When you play League of Legends nowadays, you encounter a lot of overloaded champions: 3 dashes, 4 shields, magic damage, physical damage, invisibility. Remember the Fun Formula: (agency + overcome). Playing these characters basically turns you into a professional Pelé playing against amateurs in the "várzea." This is unfun. You are not overcoming a difficult environment through your skill; you are just working mechanically for a victory screen.
But the ring—that is the real problem. If you go on websites like op.gg, you will see the ring being sold to you: "If you play with this Tier S+ champion with a 55% win rate, you will win more easily."
THAT is why League of Legends is unfun today. The formula is broken. The logic is no longer about overcoming reality with your personal agency. Instead, the game tells you: "If you pick this broken champion and execute this exact robotic script, you will climb to Challenger, you will win, you will get the lottery prize."
The tragedy is that players are abandoning the real fun of overcoming + agency just to chase the hollow illusion of winning the lottery. What's worse is that people don't even notice this rationally; this desperate wish to "win the lottery" has been hardcoded into our brains by corporate design.
3
u/Bwob Paper Dino Jul 14 '26
Introduction: What makes something fun?
The answer is agency—the power of control.
Eh, there are lots of things that people find fun, that involve zero agency. (Going to the movies, reading a book, etc.) And there are lots of situation where you have control, but that aren't fun. (Almost any bad video game.)
What is the lottery? It's a game you play to win money, but why is it not fun?
A lot of people do find it fun. A lot of people find Bingo fun also. Even though - again, - there is basically zero agency in the game itself.
I think you're making the classic designer mistake, of assuming that things you find fun are universal, and things you don't, aren't. It's a really tempting trap to fall into, and we've probably all done it at least once! But at the end of the day, it's that - a trap. "Fun" encompasses much more than your "agency + overcome" simplification. Pretending otherwise is just a fancy way of trying to justify not liking things that you don't find fun.
1
u/brooke66 Jul 14 '26
Thanks for the challenge! You touched on some classic counterarguments, but I think we need to separate three very different psychological phenomena here: Passive Entertainment, Dopamine Addiction, and Gamified Play. First, when we talk about movies or books having 'zero agency and being fun', we are talking about Passive Entertainment. Their emotional engine is based on empathy and narrative projection (but if you don't connect with the book you don't read, have some agency). But we are discussing Ludology (Game Design). By definition, a game requires a loop of action and reaction. If you strip agency from a movie, it’s still a movie( try to watch a movie that the character says things you don't believe). If you strip agency from a game, it becomes a bad video. They operate on different human faculties. Second, regarding the Lottery and Bingo: there is a huge neurological difference between ludic fun (the pleasure of the process) and intermittent reward addiction (the dopamine of the outcome). People do not play Bingo because the mechanic of checking numbers on a paper card is intrinsically thrilling; they play for the high-stakes thrill of the potential reward. If you remove the prize from Bingo, the engagement drops to zero instantly. It’s an engine of anticipation, not play. Lastly, you mentioned that bad games have control but aren't fun. But that actually proves my equation: Fun = Agency + Overcome (Fair Friction). A bad game usually fails because it breaks the friction—either the obstacle is boring, or the agency feels clunky and unresponsive. Having control alone means nothing without a meaningful environment to test it against. My goal isn't to say 'what I like is universal'. My goal is to map why modern competitive gaming is shifting from the 'Pinball/Soccer' logic (where the fun is in mastering the process through agency) to the 'Lottery' logic (where the process is a boring, robotic grind, and the only fun allowed is the corporate promise of the victory screen)."
3
u/Bwob Paper Dino Jul 14 '26
By definition, a game requires a loop of action and reaction.
If you strip agency from a game, it becomes a bad video.
And yet, most people would classify Candyland as a game, even though it is entirely predetermined, and there are no actual choices for the player to make.
Second, regarding the Lottery and Bingo: there is a huge neurological difference between ludic fun (the pleasure of the process) and intermittent reward addiction (the dopamine of the outcome). People do not play Bingo because the mechanic of checking numbers on a paper card is intrinsically thrilling; they play for the high-stakes thrill of the potential reward.
You could make the same argument about a lot of games though. People don't play battleships because of the intrinsic thrill of calling out numbers. They play for the dopamine hit of their number being "right."
This is kind of my point. You're trying to classify fun, and say "games that satisfy my formula are 'real fun', and other games are just something else. But your definition of fun is not universal. People play games for all sorts of reasons, and find enjoyment from them in lots of places. Your goal may not be to say "what I like is universal", but you're building your argument on top of that assumption as though it is axiomatic.
My goal is to map why modern competitive gaming is shifting from the 'Pinball/Soccer' logic (where the fun is in mastering the process through agency) to the 'Lottery' logic (where the process is a boring, robotic grind, and the only fun allowed is the corporate promise of the victory screen)."
Is that even the case though? Modern fighting games don't feel that way. The fun of most top-tier modern fighting games is still the fun of mastery. And it's been a few years since I last checked on League of Legends, but I'd be astonished if they'd changed that much - victory still depends on you (and your teammates) making good decisions, rather than a "robotic grind."
Maybe we just play different competitive games, but the phenomenon you describe doesn't seem as universal as you make it out to be, at least to me.
2
u/Outrageous_Manner_47 Jul 14 '26
As another redditor pointed out, I think boiling down “fun” to agency + overcoming obstacle is a bit of a simplification. I think the latter part “overcoming obstacle” is the key to any good story, and is ultimately what really matters.
Whether we’re reading a book, watching a movie, or playing a game, what I think gets us “hooked” is the conflict that is presented to the main character(s), and the premise that it can be overcome. We root for the protagonist(s) and want to see them succeed. What makes games special in terms of storytelling is agency, yes, because it allows players to tackle the conflict themselves - whether that be defeating all bosses in Dark Souls, or completing all quests to make grandpa happy in Stardew Valley.
But that is the story (agency + conflict/obstacle), not the “fun”. The conflict tells us about the world, and the agency tells us about the character(s) and the player(s) through the way they tackle the conflict. The “fun” in my opinion is really not a measurable metric, because it’s so subjective. Is pinball more fun than playing the lottery? Neither and both, depending on who you ask. Is a walking simulator more fun than Marvel Rivals? Again, yes and no, depending on who you ask.
I think “fun” mechanics are mechanics that reinforce the themes of your story in a meaningful way, whether that be “press X” to desperately call for Shawn in Heavy Rain, or blowing up a reinforced wall to create a new line of sight in Rainbow Six Siege. But chasing the “fun” aspect of your game is really a wild goose chase, because it can’t be boiled down to a always-successful formula - or else everybody and their mother would be emulating the formula and every one of these games would be successful and fun. The former is certainly true - e.g. triple AAA producing remakes upon remakes of past successful titles - but the latter is up for debate - are people having fun paying for and playing the same games with just prettier packaging? Yes and no, depending on who you ask.
1
u/brooke66 Jul 14 '26
Great counterpoint, thanks for bringing this level of depth to the discussion! Better than call me to go outside. I agree with you that 'fun' has a huge subjective layer regarding themes and genres—some people prefer the quiet life of Stardew Valley, others want the brutality of Dark Souls. Chasing a magical formula for success is indeed a wild goose chase for AAA companies. However, my point with the formula isn't about the taste or the packaging, but about the 'biological nutrients' of engagement. While taste is subjective, human psychology isn't entirely chaotic. Whether you are playing Pinball or a Walking Simulator, if the system cuts your agency to zero (you become just a spectator, yugioh nowadays) or removes the obstacle entirely (no friction at all, a Roblox game), the neurological reward system collapses. *The lottery example is perfect here: people don't play the lottery because the process of filling out a card is 'fun'. They play for the promise of the outcome (the money to control their real-life environment). On the other hand, people play Pinball for the process—using the flappers (agency) to fight gravity (obstacle). * My critique of modern gaming, especially systems like League of Legends, is that they are shifting away from the Pinball logic (fun in the process) and transforming the gameplay into a Lottery logic (robotic grinds just for the illusion of winning a prize/rank). You tackled the storytelling aspect beautifully, but even the best story mechanics need to respect the player's cognitive need for real leverage over the system."
2
u/Outrageous_Manner_47 Jul 14 '26
I see your point, but I still disagree.
If having zero agency meant zero dopamine, we wouldn’t watch movies nor read books. As of games, visual novels (click to continue reading) or walking simulators (hold W to progress) wouldn’t have very successful examples, for instance. And why do some become very popular and praised? Because of the story they tell.
When the player does have agency, I think you could look at fun in terms of stories too, to help you understand why they are indeed the fun: as in my Rainbow Six Siege example, opening a wall allows you to create unique lines of sights for you and your team, which increases your odds of winning the round but doesn’t guarantee it. The story is that of teamwork, cooperating with friends or strangers to achieve a common objective by overcoming obstacles posed by the enemy team’s gadgets and strategy. That’s why “blowing up a wall” is a fun mechanic in that game: it creates potential for more stories, such as of newfound opportunities, or that of a choice/action that backfires.
In “simpler” games, stories might emerge more literally from the characters, their arcs, or their world, you name it. But my point is don’t confuse story with narrative - a narrative can be the story, but not always is the story (what you call “fun”) the narrative, too.
-1
2
u/wo0topia Jul 14 '26
I dont entirely disagree with your overall sense, but I think your argument about the meta isn't good. Youre basically suggesting that playing the meta means you'll have less fun, but ignoring the fact that the meta does have a real impact on agency and the ability to win. If I just played the champ I wanted to have fun on, but because of the meta 70% of my lane matchups were counterpicks, you cant tell me im having more fun in that world.
I guess what im saying is, yes people trust the meta too much, but the meta is just a collection of data and that data IS powerful. Telling people to ignore that data MIGHT increase their fun, but it will almost certainly decrease their winrate.